{"id":672,"date":"2018-03-02T19:08:22","date_gmt":"2018-03-02T23:08:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/?p=672"},"modified":"2018-03-02T19:08:22","modified_gmt":"2018-03-02T23:08:22","slug":"ontario-more-on-adding-defendants-and-some-pedantry","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/?p=672","title":{"rendered":"Ontario: More on adding defendants (and some pedantry)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Bhatt v. Doe <\/em><\/a>has a good analysis of adding a defendant to proceeding after the presumptive expiry of the limitation period.\u00a0 If you want to cite a recent decision, this is a good option.<\/p>\n

In the spirit of pedantry I have two quibbles.\u00a0 First, this:<\/p>\n

\n

[<\/a>11]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0The passing of a limitation period is fatal to a motion to add a party (Limitations Act<\/i>,\u00a02002<\/i>, s. 21(1)<\/a>). The doctrine of special circumstances is no longer applicable (Joseph v. Paramount Canada\u2019s Wonderland<\/i>,\u00a0(2008),\u00a02008 ONCA 469 (CanLII)<\/a>,\u00a090 O.R. (3d) 401<\/span>\u00a0at paras. 27 and 28<\/span>\u00a0as cited in\u00a0Parent v. Janandee Management Inc.<\/i>,\u00a0[2009] O.J. No. 3763 (Master)<\/span>\u00a0at para. 29<\/span>).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It\u2019s now ten years since the Court of Appeal held that the special circumstances doctrine is no longer generally available.\u00a0 Why do bar and bench feel compelled to make this point?\u00a0\u00a0 Who still argues special circumstances?<\/p>\n

Second, this:<\/p>\n

\n

[<\/a>12]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0With respect to claims pursuant to the provisions of unidentified automobile coverage, discoverability is triggered when the insured knew or ought to have known about the material facts on which the claim is based. As stated by Justice Mackinnon in\u00a0July v. Neal<\/i>,\u00a01986 CanLII 149 (ON CA)<\/a>,\u00a0[1986] O.J. No. 1101 (C.A.)<\/span>\u00a0at para. 16<\/span>:<\/p>\n

\u2026I have concluded that the time begins to run under such circumstances as the instant case, when the material facts on which the claim is based have been discovered or ought to have been discovered by the plaintiff by the exercise of reasonable diligence:\u00a0Central Trust Co. v. Rafuse et al.<\/i>\u00a0[reported\u00a01986 CanLII 29 (SCC)<\/a>,\u00a031 D.L.R. (4th) 481<\/span><\/span>], Supreme Court of Canada, released October 9 1986 \u2013 Le Dain J. (for the court) at p. 99 [p.535 D.L.R.].<\/p>\n

See also\u00a0July<\/i>\u00a0at para. 32,\u00a0Hier v. Allstate Insurance Co. of Canada<\/i>,\u00a01988 CanLII 4741 (ON CA)<\/a>,\u00a0[1988] O.J. No. 657 (C.A.)<\/span>\u00a0at para 35<\/span>,\u00a0Galego v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.<\/i>,\u00a02005 CanLII 32932 (ON SCDC)<\/a>,\u00a0[2005] O.J. No. 3866 (Div.Ct.)<\/span>\u00a0at paras. 8 and 9<\/span>,\u00a0Wilkinson v. Braithwaite<\/i>,\u00a0[2011] O.J. No. 1714 (S.C.J.)<\/span>\u00a0at paras. 31-35<\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

With respect to any claim, s. 5 of the Limitations Act determines discovery.\u00a0 There is no “trigger” beyond knowledge of the discovery matters.\u00a0 Cases decided under the former limitations scheme, and applying the common law discovery rule, are not helpful because, as here, they cause the court to frame the issue incorrectly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Bhatt v. Doe has a good analysis of adding a defendant to proceeding after the presumptive expiry of the limitation period.\u00a0 If you want to cite a recent decision, this is a good option. In the spirit of pedantry I have two quibbles.\u00a0 First, this: [11]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0The passing of a limitation period is … Continue reading Ontario: More on adding defendants (and some pedantry)<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[124,190,9,23,198,121],"class_list":["post-672","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ontario","tag-adding-a-party","tag-civil-procedure","tag-discovery","tag-ontario-act-s-5","tag-please-excuse-my-pedantry","tag-special-circumstances"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/672","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=672"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/672\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":673,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/672\/revisions\/673"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=672"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=672"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=672"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}